Director, Sense About Science USA, which advocates for an evidence based approach to science and technology and for clinical trial transparency. Editor, STATS.org, a collaboration between the American Statistical Association and Sense About Science USA. Visiting Fellow, Cornell University. I have written about data and statistics and how they are interpreted in our so-called "knowledge economy," especially in relation to risk and regulation. I've written for the New Yorker online, Harvard Business Review, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. I speak regularly about the media's coverage of science and statistics and scientific communication. Educated at Trinity College Dublin, Georgetown, and Columbia.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

The commercial press reports what generates revenues. Revenues are generated by sales and web-traffic. A report that does not find a problem is boring and few non-epidemiologists, non-toxicologists, non-public health wonks will read it. A story about the horrors of chromium(VI) in drinking water will generate much more traffic and revenue than a report from the California Department of Public Health which found no excess cancers or health problems in Hinkely (the town of Erin Brockovich fame).

These are market driven decisions by editors. Editors who run dull articles that no one reads drive their publishers out of business. This may not be a very satisfying situation but it is what it is.

Here is where my curiosity gets me (and I am nothing but a concerned stay at home mom), but even though this study was funded by the FDA, who BEHIND the FDA really funded this study? It’s amazing what a study can “find” when being funded by the “right” person. If it is truly TRUE, than this is exciting, but if this is another cover-up by a Monsanto-like company, than shame on the FDA!!

Don’t you think you’re taking the conspiracy theorizing a little too far? First, it was funded by the EPA, not the FDA. The number of agencies and scientists involved is significant. It confirms what the EU’s equivalent of the FDA found, and all the data is available for inspection by any scientist in the world. To top it all, the guy who advises the British government on the risks of chemicals to reproductive health and who is both entirely independent and not engaged in BPA research commends the study’s methodology and caution as “majestic.” What would need to be true for a cover up – what is the chain of causality that would have to take place – in order for a cover up to happen. Now find those facts and show how they undermine all of the above. This is the Everest-like climb you would need to make in order to have grounds for suspecting a cover up.

These conclusions are well-documented and stunning in the way they go against the trend of the discussion RE BPA. However, in sympathy with commenter number two, in answering the question of why the media don’t report findings like these, she may have a point. People are much more suspicious of government agency-funded research than they used to be, as can be seen in the ongoing anti-vaccination movement among parents despite a clear public health mandate to vaccinate. I wonder whether a similar study funded by an environmental group would be embraced?

This is why looking at the data, the methods, the models, the statistics, the weight of evidence, and the strength of inferences from all these are important. What’s interesting to me is that the government-funded studies have all been conducted with total transparency: every iota of data found was published. The one time the leading “BPA is deadly” researcher handed his raw data over to a panel of biostatisticians from the National Toxicology Program, they found an error. To my knowledge, he has never revealed any more raw data since.

Mr. Butterworth, I apologize… EPA. You are right and I made a mistake. However, when one questions the validity of our government, do we automatically become a conspiracy theorist? I have long questioned many things in the government, but I consider my self a realist. I don’t take things for face value. I DO question the validity of the test because it is our government. They can’t even agree on what to do about our staggering debt right now. And as I said, if this is true, I’m excited. And Ms. Haiken is right, find a non-government agency, or privately funded, non-governmental group that has the health of our people at the heart of the findings, have them do the testing and give us the findings. That would be much easier to believe. You did write a wonderful article and I enjoyed it very much, so thank you for your time and energy in writing your article!

You know, you make a good point: we should be skeptical of government – and we should be skeptical of the politicization of science. I guess what has been infuriating to me as I’ve watched and written about this issue over the past five years is that there were clearly two sides to the equation. The regulatory agencies have said from the get go that academic critics of BPA have got their measurements wrong and aren’t modeling the problem correctly. This is how the problem should be modeled and BPA measured. The Teeguarden study’s outcomes is not a surprise for these scientists. Unfortunately, the media never covered this side of the equation. In 2006, 2008, and 2010, the European Union’s Food Safety Authority explained why BPA wasn’t a threat and why the studies claiming it was were flawed. These criticisms reflected fundamental, globally shared understandings about how to assess the toxicity of a chemical. Were these risk assessments shared with the U.S. public? In the main, no. There were 49 stories on CNN about BPA in the same time period; one mentioned the EU risk assessment even as Dr. Sanjay Gupta was extolling the virtues of the way Europe protected its population from chemicals! It almost makes one think that there is a conspiracy – in the opposite direction. Except, there are simpler explanations: you’re safe isn’t a message that sells in medialand.

I think that the problem arises when a study is questioned *just because* it is funded by the Government. At the end of the day, a study should be assessed by the soundness of the science. If the science is sound, then the science is sound whoever funded it.

It is a common approach for some who find a study whose conclusions they do not like but cannot find anything technically wrong with it to then attack the motives or honesty of the researchers. Since motivational purity and scientific sincerity are difficult to objectively assess, it becomes an entirely subjective assessment. Moreover, it does not get to the issue at hand, the soundness of the science.

Moreover, who else is going to fund a study like this? It is not like there are huge piles of money sitting about to fund projects that are somehow “untainted” by association with somebody. Every research dollar comes from somebody with some interest in the research, or they would not be funding it.

While I would not say that the question of who funds a study is never an issue, it certainly can be, it should not be the starting point. This sort of thing is only an issue when the science is questionable and then the question is raised, “Well, why is it questionable”.

This is a great piece of research that should be used to protect and reassure consumers. It’s just a shame the media aren’t taking advantage of this good news story. This is an issue we also face in the UK and one that we’re trying to compete with at the Food Standards Agency.